magnus:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:31 AM, brian <brianchina60221 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy
> > the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's
> > already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in
> > violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't
> > seem inclined to do that by default.
>> I'm not sure I understand you here. Would you clarify your words
> here, bearing in mind that GHC doesn't do dynamic linking of Haskell
> modules?
Yes, its very simple:
* C libraries are classically dynamically linked, so you're in
compliance there with any LGPL C lib you use. (under the usual
interpretation of the LGPL)
* Haskell libraries are always statically linked and agressively
inlined, so opinion seems to be that LGPL licensed *Haskell
libaries* are unsuitable for any projects you want to ship
commercially, without source code.
* Only a small percent of Haskell libarires are LGPL, and nothing
for which we don't have workarounds (e.g. HDBC vs galois-sqlite3
vs takusen).
* None of the core system or Haskell platform are LGPLd, they're all
"BSD3"
* "BSD3" style reminds the vast majority, and preferred license, for
Haskell code.
IANAL.
-- Don "ship some Haskell today" Stewart